We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

The authors of the Report are Reid Christianson, PE, PhD; Carol Wont, PE; and Moira McDonald.

The Report is intended to highlight similarities between nutrient reduction or nutrient loss strategies for Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. The nutrient reduction and nutrient loss reduction strategies are focused on the nutrient reduction goals for the Gulf of Mexico for these three states.

The strategies are intended to respond to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan. That plan is focused on the 12 states (Arkansas is one of the 12 states) within the Mississippi River basin. The plan’s goal is stated to be the reduction of nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico by 45%.

The three states are stated to have spent significant time and effort (including assistance from scientists and professionals) in developing state-specific plans to reduce nutrients leaving their states. It is noted that:

. . .these plans have to account for statewide differences in local climate and agricultural practices, the underlying assumptions and methods used to develop BMP efficiencies should align to ensure their cumulative effectiveness will meet the Gulf Hypoxia Reduction Goal. Further, establishing a consistent Best Management Practice (BMP) currency among states will allow gross tracking in addition to helping multi-state funding programs accurately prioritize resources and uniformly measure progress. State credit trading programs are also dependent on regional markets with consistent trading currencies.

Comparison of the three state strategies representing the Upper Mississippi is projected to help states begin the dialog on how the respective approaches can be better aligned and to identify gaps in knowledge as well as focus areas for future research.

The Report is stated to highlight discrepancies between state efforts “as a point of discussion in an attempt to potentially determine real differences between states and to gain consensus on assumptions, data sources and methodologies that can make state strategies more robust.”